Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/13/1984ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 13, 1984 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers: Lieser; Murphy; Thede; Szopinski; and Johnson. Boardmembers Walker and Dodder were not present. Staff Nembers Present: Barnes; Zeigler; Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting November 8. 1984 Were Approved The minutes of the regular meeting which was held on November 8, 1984 were unanimously approved. Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 20, 1984 Were Approved The minutes of the special meeting which was held on November 20, 1984 were unanimously approved. Appeal #1582. Section 118-81(C)(1) by Wayne & Nancy Coffman, 615 West St. - Approved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would allow part of a detached garage to be used in connection with a home occupation. Specifically, packaged nuts, candies, and dried fruits would be stored in part of the garage for the "Happy Trails Nut Co.", distributors for Mountain Man Nut & Fruit Co. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioners are going to be needing additional room in the house when their new baby arrives. They would like to be. able to use part of the garage to store stock in. This is presently being stored in the house. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that the Coffman's had a variance granted on the same piece of property at the November 8 regular meeting. Petitioner Nancy Coffman explained that there would be no office or phone in the garage, just several shelfs for storage. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship stated. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Thede, Szopinski and Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal #1583. Withdrawn. Appeal #1584. Section 118-41(B), 118-41(D), 118-41(E) by Joe Vansant, Contractor, 1113 W. Olive - Denied There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 3000 square feet, reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, and reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. The variance would also allow the home to be 1480 square feet instead of the permitted 1000 square feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot used to be a City of Fort Collins substa- tion and was created for that use, therefore it is small. There is no additional land available to buy and without a variance nothing can be built. --- Staff recommendation: None, this is a city owned lot. The Board considered similar variances for this property on 7-8-82 and 10-13-83, and denied them both times on close votes of three to two." There were no notices or letters returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that the ZBA had denied this variance several times before because of the smallness of the lot. He asked Mr. Vansant to explain the variance requested. Mr. Vansant explained that he would be the architect, owner, and contrac- tor. He plans on living in it. He is planning to try some innovative solar ideas and wants to reside in it to see if they work. He said that he didn't feel that the house was too large for the lot. Sylvia Nye, 306 Scott, spoke opposed to the variance. She said that 12 of 16 houses i-n the area are rentals. For this reason she felt that the majority of the neighbors wouldn't oppose the variance because they aren't owners. She felt the zoning laws were made with a purpose in mind and that they should be followed. -2- Randy Vinton spoke on behalf of Joe Vinton, 314 Scott. He said that his father was opposed to the variance for several reasons. There is too much congestion with the traffic from the school and there are too many rentals in the area. At this point Mr. Vansant reiterated the fact that the house would not be a rental. He will be occupying it himself. Rubin Vinton, 314 Scott, spoke against the variance. He said that he lives in the basement and there is a real parking problem in the neighborhood. He thinks that the lot is too small and that the variance should be denied. Harriett Froberg, 1103 W. Olive said that she has lived at this address for 31 years. She feels very strongly that there should not be an exception to the zoning laws. Discussion was held. Boardmember Murphy said that he remembers the last two variances and had voted against but now doesn't know what to do because the City pesists in trying to sell it. The lot is too small to develop. Boardmember Thede said that she felt the same way. She suggested that Mr. Vansant look into other larger lots in town for his project. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Murphy, Thede, and Johnson. Nays: Lieser; Szopinski. Appeal 01585. Section 118-81(C)(1) by Jeff Klute, 345 S. Taft Hill Rd. - Approved with conditions There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would allow the petitioner to use an existing detached shop for a bicycle repair business as a home occupation. --- Hardship pleaded: The detached building has been used by the present owner for many years for his construction business, so the property is already set up for a business. The proposed use would not alter the appearance of the property. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the variance be only for bicycle repair." Petitioner Jeff Klute told the Board that he is buying the property whether the variance goes through or not. He would like to run a bicycle repair business. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the business be limited to bicycle repair only. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy; Thede; Szopin- ski; Johnson. Nays: None. -3- s • . Appeal #1586. Section 118-43(C), 118-43(E), 118-43(F) by Bob Black & Dave Parker. 420 Hawkins - Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet, and reduce the east side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet and the west side setback from 15 feet to 14 feet for an addition of another dwelling unit to an existing single family dwelling, resulting in a duplex. --- Hardship pleaded: The part of the structure which requires the setback variances is already existing. The addition will comply with all setbacks. The lot is an older, platted lot with only 50 feet of width and no additional land is available. The lot has more lot area than the code requires. The addition of another dwelling unit should not cramp the lot. --- Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Petitioner Bob Black told the Board that this piece of property is con- nected to the pieces of property that he had gotton a variance on last month. It is an existing house that he wishes to convert to a duplex. He said the remodel work that he proposes would make the duplex similar in looks to the apartment that he will be building. He plans on residing in the duplex. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Lieser; Murphy; Thede; Szopinski; Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal #1587. Section 118-43(C) by Steve Barbier and John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor, 221 Second Street - Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 50 feet of width. The petitioner is proposing an infill project on this lot and will be demolishing an unsafe home in order to build a new home and upgrade the area. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters returned. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, explained that he would discuss Appeal #1587 and Appeal #1588 at the same time as they were the same situation in the same area. -4- Petitioner Steve Barbier from Neighbor to Neighbor explained that they would not be moving houses onto these lots as in the past, but would build a new single family dwelling. He felt that this would help to upgrade the neighborhood. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Lieser; Murphy; Thede; Szopinski; Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal #1588. Section 118-43(C) by Steve Barbier and John Snell Icr Neighbor to Neighbor, 217 Second St. - Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: Same as appeal #1587. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters received. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Lieser; Murphy; Thede; Szopinski; Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal #1589. Section 118-95(D) by Terry Whalen for American Signs, 2229 S. College - Tabled "--- The variance would allow one piece of property to have two freestand- ing signs on one street frontage. Specifically, the variance would allow the University Mall shopping center to construct a new tenant directory sign in addition to the existing Mann Theater marquis sign. --- Hardship pleaded: There is no sign which currently identifies the mall or the tenants. The existing sign is only for the theater use. The property has 850 feet of lot frontage and the 2 signs would be S00 feet apart so there wouldn't be any resulting clutter. --- Staff recommendation: Approval of the request for a second sign at the proposed location, but denial for this particular sign. The proposed sign listing all the tenants is perhaps a little too big and too "busy". It would be very difficult to read the tenant names or to pick one out while driving by. None of the other major centers in town have tenant signs. Rather they have signs mainly advertising the name of the center." -5- There were no notices or letters returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed the Board slides of the property and pointed out where the proposed sign would be placed. Petitioner Terry Whalen for American Signs asked if the Board could wait five minutes so that the mall manager Ilene Humphries, could attend the meeting. The Board recessed for five minutes. Reconvening, Terry Whalen explained that Ms. Humphries had not shown up and he would explain what they were requesting. He said that Ms. Humphries had asked for a variance earlier to get additional square footage for signage in view of the fact that they would be remodeling the mall. This variance was granted and she has been trying to decide how best to use this extra signage. The tenants in the mall have virtually no advertising for their businesses and they decided that a second freestanding sign would best suit their needs. They feel that since it would be quite a bit of distance from the existing freestanding sign that there wouldn't be any congestion problem. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said they were granted extra signage but it was never discussed on how they would use the extra square footage. Boardmember Thede asked how many businesses would be advertising on this sign. There would be 29 displayed on the sign, Mr. Whalen advised. Boardmember Szopinski asked how many square feet they were allowed on one ground sign. Mr. Barnes said that the sign that is already up has 120 square feet per face which is the maximum allowed. Mr. Whalen said that with the very large frontage the University Mall has they do not feel that they are violating the intent of the code. Boardmember Szopinski said that he had two problems with the variance request. One is that the variance is asking for two ground signs and even though there is a large frontage, he felt that one ground sign is enough. The other objection that he has is aesthetics. He feels it is not normally accepted for an interior mall to advertise in this manner. Boardmember Thede said that she felt that the tenant signs would not be that big and it will appear to look like a classified ad. She felt that the traffic along College travels at such a high rate of speed that the small lettering would not be visible. She felt that this would not be beneficial to the businesses in the long run. Boardmember Thede stated that she did not like the design. Boardmember Szopinski stated that color and aesthetics could not be controlled by this Board. 10 Mr. Whalen felt that the University Mall is a combination between an interior mall and a strip mall. Boardmember Thede said that she would not object to it if it were located closer to the mall. The traffic would then be moving slower and it would be much more readable. She felt that the landscaped area directly: `ront of the main entrance would be preferable. Boardmember Lieser asked if they had considered combining the two ground signs into the one that is already there. Mr. Whalen said that the problem with that is that a theater marquis needs a fairly large area. Mr. Whalen told the Board that they were more than willing to work with the Board on aesthetics and he feels they need to keep the businesses within the mall in mind. Boardmember Szopinski asked if the decision could be tabled until next month so they could work something out. Mr. Szopinski said that he is not willing to make a decision without the manager present. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to table the decision until next month. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Lieser; Murphy; Thede; Szopinski; Johnson. Nays: None. Secretary Chairman -7-